Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Jeremiad on Sedevacantism (the Denial that Pope Benedict XVI is Actually the Pope, and Utter Rejection of Ecumenism)

"Pope Michael": David Allen Bawden (b. 1959), who lives in Kansas, is a former SSPX seminarian who was never even ordained as a priest, yet who was elected as "pope" by a group of six laypeople on July 16, 1990. Gotta love it: a 31-year-old non-ordained pope from Kansas. This guy's not even fit to be the Wizard of Oz.

This post came about in a private Facebook group e-mail exchange. Somehow I got on the list with several sedevacantists (literally, "the seat is vacant" or the notion that there is no valid current pope, and/or that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic). Perhaps this was God's providence.

I certainly spoke my mind! I have little patience with this line of thought, so forgive me beforehand for any lack of charity exhibited. I can't reveal other comments, since it was a private discussion; hence, the somewhat "choppy" nature of my comments.

Above all, please fervently pray and do penance for people who are trapped in this sad way of thinking. There was no reasoning with them. The Holy Spirit will have to do a work of grace here, to open blinded eyes. All of my reasoning seemed to fall on deaf ears; yet we never know how the Lord might be working on someone, from the inside. The apologist must always remember this, even in the midst of the most immensely frustrating encounters, as this was.

* * * * *

Here I'm replying to a bald statement that Pope Benedict XVI was a "heretic":

Rather, you are a schismatic. You incoherently reject the method that Holy Mother Church has providentially adopted in order to select her popes. This undermines all authority by logical extension, since you have adopted private judgment: a fundamental rejection of the Catholic rule of faith. Hence, people of your persuasion also reject ecumenical councils that are every bit as valid as Trent was.

Why not become a Catholic liberal? You would fit right in, with this mentality. The liberal, so-called "progressive" dissidents don't want to do what the pope says. You take it a step further and reject the authority of the sitting pope altogether. Thus, it is a sort of super-liberalism.

You're in a bad spiritual place. I strongly urge you to seriously reconsider this error.

* * *

After many more rants and blasts of Church and pope alike, I stated, with sarcasm, but with perfect seriousness; making a logical point:

Why don't you proclaim yourself to be pope [several sedevacantists have done exactly that], then we can start on the road to recovery, led by your manifest wisdom?

* * *

Someone said that they accepted the papacy, just not Benedict XVI.

Well, you actually don't, because, as I noted, you reject the method that Holy Mother Church has long since established for selecting her popes; hence you reject the present pope, and with him, the orthodox idea of the papacy itself. The Catholic can't simply make himself the judge over the Church. That was Luther's error. Why play games at being a Catholic with this absurd method and incoherent ecclesiology that you espouse?

I was informed that the Catholic Church now thinks Allah and the Christian God are one and the same (because of some ecumenical statements in Vatican II); thus, that the Church has rejected trinitarianism. I had several thoughts about that:

By your convoluted reasoning, our Lord Jesus was clearly a heretic and wild-eyed liberal ecumenist because he commended the pagan Roman centurion for his faith (and said he had more faith than most -- or all? -- in Israel):

Matthew 8:5-13 As he entered Caper'na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." [7] And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." [8] But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,' and he goes, and to another, `Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,' and he does it." [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." [13] And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

By the same token (by your reasoning), St. Paul was a heretic and no Catholic Christian, since, after all, he commended the pagan, idolatrous Athenians for their religiosity (Acts 17:22) and pragmatically utilized their existing worship of "the unknown god" as a bridge to preach the gospel to them (17:23-31).

Paul is a terrible heretic. Look at what he says in Romans 2! He talks about "Gentiles who have not the law" (2:14) -- by analogy, not possessing the full revelation of the gospel -- and implies that they quite possibly could be saved despite their ignorance (2:15).

Many Muslims are at least as pious as the Roman centurion or the pagan Athenians or the Gentiles "without the law," yet with a conscience, whom Paul discussed in Romans 2.

You have a dim understanding of the biblical motifs that underlie ecumenism, and also historic Catholic ecumenism, such as seen in St. Thomas Aquinas in his developed theology of baptism of desire, etc. and in popes of the last 150 years. It didn't just start with Vatican II. But the radical Catholic reactionary (RadCathR) myth and mantra would have it so, so there can never be any serious or deep enough analysis to help you see the error of your ways.

* * *

Fellow orthodox Catholic and friend William Albrecht commented:

Your assertion that Benedict XVI praying with Muslims is tantamount to heresy is outrageously ignorant. Only God knows the minds and hearts of individuals, and if you consider this an act of heresy, then Paul lost his office also for calling the Pagans very religious and for entering synagogues. A thorough, intelligent examination of the Pope's actions is due.

By sedevacantist "logic" they were completely off-base because in so doing, they were supposedly denying the Trinity and espousing the Jewish absolute monotheism (God is one Person rather than three). Jesus even told His followers to do what the Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:2-3), despite the fact that the non-Christian Pharisees did not accept the Trinity.

If you give me a ridiculous "Christian" religion that requires me to reject Jesus and Paul and Peter as heretics, then I will reject it every time. But this is what your "reasoning" entails. It's far more absurd than liberal Catholicism. At least liberal, dissident, pick-and-choose, "cafeteria" Catholics know that there is a sitting pope.

15 comments:

An interesting discussion. However, since I am in no way qualified to comment in any meaningful way (though that never stopped me before) I do have this to say, which is quite in keeping with the situation:

D. Bock in his commentary on Acts translates Acts 17:22 with the more neutral "I perceive that in every way you are very religious." The word for religious can also mean superstitous so Paul might be saying something quite negative. In any event he goes on to criticize their religion. I certainly doesn't sound like a modern day ecumenically oriented catholic.

There's also dispute about Romans 1 and whether pagan gentiles or gentile Christians are in view.

Paul's talk n Mars Hill is the classic exercise of ecumenism and apologetics together. He proclaims Catholic truth but in doing so he builds upon what was true in pagan religion (citing pagan poets and philosophers also). The first thing is apologetics, the second ecumenism. This is precisely one of the emphases of Vatican II: build upon what is true in all belief-systems.

That was also the method of the Church historically, in co-opting pagan holidays and "baptizing" or Christianizing them.

There is also a very sharp condemnation of pagan religion, which is certainly not characteristic of contemporary Catholic ecumenicalism. (Actually, the church uses 'ecumenicalism' to mean dialogue with fellow Christians and 'interreligious dialogue' for dialogue with non-Christians.)

Most translations I've seen use the word "religious" here, though the Greek can have the other connotation as well. I looked through many of my 30 or so versions of the Bible and the only one that has "superstitious" is KJV. Even the ASV of 1901 has "religious."

The word is Strong's #1174: deisidaimonestoros.

Kittel says that in Acts 17:22 it means "a good neutral expression for religion." Cf. Acts 25:19 (Festus). Vincent's Word Studies on the NT states that it could have either meaning according to context but that it is implausible that Paul would try to anger his audience right off the bat. Vincent writes:

"What he means to say is, You are more divinity-fearing than the rest of the Greeks. Thius propensity to reverence the higher powers is a good thing in itself, only, as he shows them, it is misdirected, not rightly conscious of its object and aim."

This is precisely as I have been saying. He took what was true of their religion and built upon it. He didn't condemn it outright.

W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words takes the same position: "the context too suggests that the adjective is used in a good sense."

So the translators and lexicons are with me, by and large. And these are all non-Catholic sources.

That may be true (neutral, as the lexicons say), but it's not a negative remark at any rate.

If he was dead set against absolutely everything in pagan religion he wouldn't have quoted a pagan poet and philosopher. This is clearly a use of what is true within a system that is ultimately not true in all aspects.

And that is what ecumenism does, and Catholic ecumenism. It has a clear basis in the Bible.

Say I quote Freud or Marx positively (they said some good things after all). That doesn't mean I "commend" their general approach to things.

If talking to non-Christians about their faith and commonalities with Christianity that is one thing, but do you think Acts 17 provides a justification for, say, Cardinal Law taking part in an Islamic religious ceremony? Note that, unlike say the Assisi event, Paul never encouraged the pagans to pray to their idols.

It has to be understood what is going on if we participate at all in an Islamic service. We don't have to enter fully into their worship. Muslims deny the Trinity; so do Jews. Was it wrong for Jesus, Paul, and the early Christians to attend synagogue and Temple services, since the Jews also rejected the trinity?

Was it a sin for Jesus to tell His followers to follow the teachings of the Pharisees (who weren't trinitarians): Matthew 23:1-4? Or for Paul to call himself a Pharisee twice, after he was a Christian?

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).